Another board I frequent made note that Stillerstahl's good buddy Dan Onorato currently rakes in roughly $200,000 as a lobbyist for Highmark. Regardless of the legalities of all this nonsense, sounds like Luke's just looking for his next career.

I don't know about the legalities, but I heard a segment on NPR a couple weeks ago about the causes of high health care costs, and a big reason they pointed to was the way these huge non-profit health systems operate. So, based on that report, I don't think it's a bad idea to make them pay some sort of taxes.

largegarlic wrote:I don't know about the legalities, but I heard a segment on NPR a couple weeks ago about the causes of high health care costs, and a big reason they pointed to was the way these huge non-profit health systems operate. So, based on that report, I don't think it's a bad idea to make them pay some sort of taxes.

For-profit corporations are a bunch of individual actors trying to maximize their own well-being.

Non-profit corporations are a bunch of individual actors trying to maximize their own well-being.

For a philosophical perspective, I see little difference. Walmart's employees (from CEO to greeter), of course, maximizes their well-being by making money, which usually requires improving Walmart's profits. But along the way we get some good products. Highmark is the exact same. So what if they don't have shareholders. Each employee makes more $$ by Highmark making m ore $$. We get good healthcare along the way. Both, of course, also bring along deleterious effects. Walmart might provide a shoddy product and Highmark could deny an insurance claim. Higher education is identical. Employees want to make $$ they do so by increasing the college's revenue.

“Nonprofit” is somewhat of a misnomer. It does not mean that an entity is not permitted to run a profit or that it must spend any surplus of income over its expenses. It basically means that the company does not operate for the financial benefit of owners or shareholders. Those companies do not issue stock and do not pay dividends to any shareholders or owners.

pfim wrote:When your CEO makes $6 million a year, it's tough to call yourself a non-profit with a straight face. Of course it's for profit, the profits are going to those in executive positions.

Legally? I don't really know. It's entirely distasteful, though.

Goodwill's CEO makes $2.3 million...

When did it become cool for the Government to renege on promises they make in the interest of supporting the economics of the region? If UPMC loses non-profit status, what happens with Highmark? And WPAHS? And what about their affiliation with University of Pittsburgh and the medical breakthroughs that come from the grants they received?

This isn't as simple as a decision to make them 'pay their fair share'.

pfim wrote:When your CEO makes $6 million a year, it's tough to call yourself a non-profit with a straight face. Of course it's for profit, the profits are going to those in executive positions.

Legally? I don't really know. It's entirely distasteful, though.

Goodwill's CEO makes $2.3 million...

When did it become cool for the Government to renege on promises they make in the interest of supporting the economics of the region? If UPMC loses non-profit status, what happens with Highmark? And WPAHS? And what about their affiliation with University of Pittsburgh and the medical breakthroughs that come from the grants they received?

This isn't as simple as a decision to make them 'pay their fair share'.

Well, that's just not true. Goodwill's CEO, Jim Gibbons, makes about $780k per year. And I'm not sure how one not-for-profit's executive salaries justify another's.

The court will decided the "fair share" issue based on the precedent. But you can't tell me that his $6 million is justified ethically given the tax status of the business.

Certainly though, as you suggest, there are many more facets to this than executive pay.

Shyster wrote:“Nonprofit” is somewhat of a misnomer. It does not mean that an entity is not permitted to run a profit or that it must spend any surplus of income over its expenses. It basically means that the company does not operate for the financial benefit of owners or shareholders. Those companies do not issue stock and do not pay dividends to any shareholders or owners.

Do you think that non profits should get some of the tax benefits that they receive then? But yeah, people get fixated on the term "non profit" and expect unrealistic things.

I do think that it is very detrimental for an organization the size of UPMC to operate as a non profit. I remember seeing a story about them buying up property on Baum Blvd and outbidding competing bids because they could afford a higher upfront price because of their tax exemptions. With a corporation that large and profitable operating with other advantages is not good for market competition.

pfim wrote:When your CEO makes $6 million a year, it's tough to call yourself a non-profit with a straight face. Of course it's for profit, the profits are going to those in executive positions.

Legally? I don't really know. It's entirely distasteful, though.

Goodwill's CEO makes $2.3 million...

When did it become cool for the Government to renege on promises they make in the interest of supporting the economics of the region? If UPMC loses non-profit status, what happens with Highmark? And WPAHS? And what about their affiliation with University of Pittsburgh and the medical breakthroughs that come from the grants they received?

This isn't as simple as a decision to make them 'pay their fair share'.

Well, that's just not true. Goodwill's CEO, Jim Gibbons, makes about $780k per year. And I'm not sure how one not-for-profit's executive salaries justify another's.

The court will decided the "fair share" issue based on the precedent. But you can't tell me that his $6 million is justified ethically given the tax status of the business.

Certainly though, as you suggest, there are many more facets to this than executive pay.

I just don't see why we only consider fairness in terms of cashflow. UPMC is a pillar of the regions viability. Suing them and dragging them into court doesn't sound like the best way to foster a positive relationship going forward.

Last edited by Pitt87 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The hammer needs to come down on the entire US health care industry. If you charge a penny more than Medicare prices, you are no longer non-profit. This industry is not free market in any stretch of the definition and needs regulated badly. If we only had a president with a mandate to fix this...

AlexPKeaton wrote:The hammer needs to come down on the entire US health care industry. If you charge a penny more than Medicare prices, you are no longer non-profit. This industry is not free market in any stretch of the definition and needs regulated badly. If we only had a president with a mandate to fix this...

Medicare is covering less and less care all the time because of its costs. What if you want to provide supplemental care not covered by Medicare? Are you for-profit at that point?

AlexPKeaton wrote:The hammer needs to come down on the entire US health care industry. If you charge a penny more than Medicare prices, you are no longer non-profit. This industry is not free market in any stretch of the definition and needs regulated badly. If we only had a president with a mandate to fix this...

Charges don't mean anything. Everything is based around the Medicare fee schedule anyways

AlexPKeaton wrote:The hammer needs to come down on the entire US health care industry. If you charge a penny more than Medicare prices, you are no longer non-profit. This industry is not free market in any stretch of the definition and needs regulated badly. If we only had a president with a mandate to fix this...

Charges don't mean anything. Everything is based around the Medicare fee schedule anyways

And if it costs a hospital $1000 to provide service X, but Medicare is only going to pay $900, they need to get that $100 somewhere else - by charging other patients more. What does it matter - you just pay your copay. Doesnt matter to you if the hospital charges your insurance company $100 or $100,000 if all you pay is a deductible or copay.

Thats the shifting and hiding of costs that I think is really driving prices. If I want to get reconstructive ACL surgery I know exactly what it will cost me by looking at my health plan. I therefore have no reason to "shop around" for the best price on it like I would if I was getting my car painted or having a bumper replaced.

My biggest problem with UPMC is their insurance tie-in. I mean if you have UPMC insurance, you can't go to this local Physical Therapy place because UPMC insurance specifically will not pay them as a provider. I don't like a non-profit pulling that card. It's one thing for the hospital to refer back to itself, but I draw the line when the hospital's insurance starts putting up walls.

AlexPKeaton wrote:The hammer needs to come down on the entire US health care industry. If you charge a penny more than Medicare prices, you are no longer non-profit. This industry is not free market in any stretch of the definition and needs regulated badly. If we only had a president with a mandate to fix this...

Charges don't mean anything. Everything is based around the Medicare fee schedule anyways

And if it costs a hospital $1000 to provide service X, but Medicare is only going to pay $80